CON ED IS PRESSED TO RECOVER FUNDS

The city charged yesterday that the Consolidated Edison Company was not trying hard enough to recover for its cus tomers the money the company Says it was overcharged over a 10‐year period by 13 con tractors who admitted rigging their bids on construction Work.

“Con Edison lacks any strong motivation to prosecute this suit with the vigor needed to fully protect its consumers,” the city said in a motion filed in Federal Court that asks to be allowed to join Con Edison as plaintiff in its suit against the contractors.

A spokesman for the utility said: “We have a first‐rate law firm, Shearman & Sterling, and they are prosecuting the case diligently. We have said that any money we received would redound to the benefit of our customers.”

The suit, filed by Con Edison in January, 1969, asks for an unspecified amount of money in triple damages from 13 com panies and nine individuals who were indicted by a New York County grand jury on charges of rigging more than $35‐million worth of contracts for Con Edison and other utility companies in the city.

“Since then,” the city said, “Con Ed has taken none of the usual pretrial discovery steps to obtain evidence normally taken in multimillion‐dol lar treble‐damage actions, pend ing a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss [the case] on the ground that any conspiracy violated only state, not Federal laws.”

The motion for a dismissal was denied on June 11 by Judge Edmund L. Palmieri, but not finally disposed of until July 16.

The antitrust case also fig ured in the State Public Service Commission's approval on Aug. 12 of a 4 per cent increase in Con Ed's electricity rates, which was less than the utility had sought.

The commission then said that Con Edison would have to apply any money it re covered — estimated by the city to be no more than $156.6 million — in the antitrust suit against the $3.1‐billion rate base on which the rates are calculated. In the meantime the base was reduced by $16‐mil lion as a temporary measure.

Overcharge in Question

The city's court papers said the company told the P.S.C. that it had done $239‐million worth of business with the companies that had admitted collusive bidding but argued that $97.6 million of that total was not “tainted” with bid‐rigging.

The city said that the rigged bids were at least 18 per cent higher than they should have been in competitive bidding, but that Con Edison had dis missed as “not supported by the facts” all but the lowest, overcharge estimate that was presented to the P.S.C., or 7 per cent.

“Con Edison has apparently predetermined the extent of, its damages without sufficient knowledge and contrary to the interests of consumers,” the city said, asking for a court order to hold in escrow what ever damages are eventually recovered by Con Edison until it agrees to put into effect “an appropriate rate reduction.”

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this archives appears in print on August 20, 1970, on Page 47 of the New York edition with the headline: CON ED IS PRESSED TO RECOVER FUNDS. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe